SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “manufacturing process planning”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

232 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Thermal Energy Storage

The concept of thermal energy storage (TES) can be traced back to early 19th century, with the invention of the ice box to prevent butter from melting. Modern TES development began with building heating and cooling and concentrated solar thermal technologies for power generation in the early 1900s and late 1970s, respectively. TES systems provide many advantages compared with other long-duration energy storage (LDES) technologies, which include low costs, long operational lives, high energy density, synchronous power generation capability with inertia that inherently stabilizes the grid, and the ability to output both heat and electricity. TES Use Cases TES technologies can couple with most renewable energy systems, including wind, photovoltaic, and concentrated solar thermal energy, and can be used for heat-to-heat, heat-to-electricity, electricity-to-heat, and electricity-to-electricity (bidirectional electricity) applications. The three types of TES that have heat as an input or output are grouped together for the purposes of this report. Retrofitting retired thermal power plants can be a potential cost-effective option for TES with electricity output because they both use a similar thermal-to-electricity type of conversion. Additionally, TES can directly serve heat demand for buildings and industrial processes, displacing fossil fuels to achieve broad decarbonization. Bidirectional Electricity Figure 1 shows a bidirectional electricity TES (ETES) architecture that is emerging as a prime technology for LDES at a grid scale. The ETES technology can utilize existing TES technology infrastructures, has no geological limitations (such as mountains and water for pumped storage hydro, underground natural caverns for compressed-air energy storage, etc.), and is capable of deployment anywhere in the United States and the world for broad uses. Particularly, ETES technology can be placed at retired fossil-fueled thermal power plants to reuse decommissioned assets, protect job security in associated communities, and provide resilient and high-inertia (i.e., spinning) power to the grid. Heat Input and Output There also are many ways to integrate TES within heat-to-electricity, heat-to-heat, and electricity-to-heat applications, such as those used in concentrating solar power (CSP), buildings, district heating, and industry process heat applications. These categories can be further classified for low- and high-temperature applications. High-temperature thermal energy storage (HTTES) heat-to-electricity TES applications are currently associated with CSP deployments for power generation. TES with CSP has been deployed in the Southwestern United States with rich solar resources and has proved its value to the electric grid. Electricity-to-heat and heat-to-heat HTTES applications present great potential for decarbonizing energy-intensive industrial process heat applications [8, 9], such as iron ore processing, iron smelting, cement production, glass manufacturing, mineral processing, and chemical production. Some industrial processes require process heat at temperatures > 1,400°C, so HTTES can be utilized to reduce fuel consumption in those processes through fuel, oxidizer, and process material pre-heating. Thermal energy storage for augmenting existing industrial process heat applications makes a much more attractive economic case because the energy penalty due to thermal-to-electric conversion is eliminated. Co-located applications of power production and heat also can add to the value stacking of integrating utility-scale TES; however, these scenarios are very case specific and not practically possible in many cases. These constraints are primarily attributed to the existing infrastructure being designed, developed, and constructed for many decades around the most economically feasible technologies, such as electricity and a selection of fossil fuels for heat input. Low-temperature TES can be utilized for building and district heating and cooling, as well as some process heat applications in electricity-to-heat and heat-to-heat configurations. Lower temperature TES (LTTES) can be added to heat pump equipment (electric input), either directly interacting with the refrigerant in the condenser or evaporator, or through a secondary heat transfer fluid. It also can be integrated in the building envelope or within the ducts of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Cost-effective integration of TES into buildings adds significant cost, and it is one of the key barriers preventing the commercialization and deployment of TES. The optimal strategy for integrating TES with buildings has yet to be determined for various applications of TES. Nevertheless, thermal storage materials are far less costly per unit of energy stored than electricity storage materials. This means that thermal storage has the potential to reduce the cost to society of energy storage.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2020

Closing the Loops on Solar Photovoltaics Modules: An Agent-Based Modeling Approach for the Study of Circular Economy Strategies

Solar photovoltaics (PV) installed capacity have grown exponentially since the early 2000s (average annual growth rate of 50%). With 4,700 GW projected installed capacity by 2050, the volume of PV panels waste is also expected to become substantial. Though renewables are a sine qua non to the establishment of a truly circular economy (CE), the issue arising from their end-of-life management needs to be resolved. The management of PV end-of-life also represent a singular opportunity to create value, from recovered valuable, rare or critical materials (e.g. silver, tellurium, indium). Moreover, the PV case illustrates some of the current barriers to CE; for instance, the need for a common definition of waste (PV are defined as e-waste in the European Union but as general waste in the United States) and potential loss of innovations' advantages (PV average efficiency has continuously grown the past 10 years). In this study, an agent-based modeling (ABM) approach is proposed to simulate PV end-of-life management in the United States. The model explores how the decisions of the various actors involved in handling PV waste affect the quantities of PV that are reused, recycled, or land-filled. In the model, manufacturers, residential, and nonresidential PV owners, installers, and recyclers are represented by agents while governmental policies and regulations are treated as exogenous variables. PV-market data are used to define agents' characteristics (e.g., installed PV capacities or producing costs). Agents' decision rules draw on the literature related to industrial symbiosis (IS) and peoples' waste behaviors as they appear as the most widely used model to implement CE principles at a meso level. Specifically, the concepts of mutual trust between IS actors and knowledge about the IS philosophy are yielded to define the agents' decision process. The primary outputs of the ABM are the costs and volume of waste associated with each end-of-life pathway. Preliminaries results indicate recycling of residential PV is affected by the cost, perceived difficulty of recycling behaviors, and social norms. Moreover, the type of network connecting agents and the initial recycling rate strongly influence results. The model also highlights the crucial role of recycling behavior adoption: in case of early failure of PV, recycled volumes increase by about 40%. This represents an additional 5.7 billion USD from potential recovered silver. Finally, although results for the PV case are presented here, the developed ABM aims at being a general tool for the study of CE strategies and the CE transition. Furthermore, steps of this research include extending the model to encompass circular economy strategies (e.g., design for recycling or lifetime extension) and validating its general architecture from various case studies.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Cost and life cycle analysis for deep CO 2 emissions reduction of steelmaking: Blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace and electric arc furnace technologies

Iron and steel manufacturing is the largest contributor to CO 2 emissions among heavy industries worldwide. This is mostly due to the use of coal in blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) process for virgin (primary) steel production. The electricity generation mix used in the electric arc furnace (EAF) process to recycle scrap steel also contributes to the CO 2 emission associated with secondary steel production. To decarbonize iron and steel sector, we investigated decarbonization options for BF-BOF and EAF processes, including energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, and the use of clean energy sources, in various BF-BOF and EAF process configurations. Additionally, for each decarbonization approach, we evaluated the CO 2 reduction potential via life cycle analysis (LCA) and estimated the associated cost through techno-economic analysis (TEA). A typical U.S. BF-BOF for virgin steel production has a cradle-to-gate (CTG) CO 2 emissions of 1,990 kg/MT steel with a levelized cost of steel (LCOS) of $\$439$/MT steel, while a typical U.S. EAF process for secondary steel production in the United States has a CTG CO 2 emissions of 270 kg/MT steel with a LCOS of $\$365$/MT steel. Combining renewable energy sources and carbon capture, BF-BOF CTG CO 2 emissions can be reduced to 16 kg/MT steel, and EAF configurations can achieve similar deep reductions to reach 25 kg/MT steel. The corresponding LCOS with these decarbonization levels is estimated to increase to $\$542$/MT steel and $\$348$/MT steel, respectively. The estimated CO 2 avoidance costs vary from -$\$90$/MT CO 2 to $\$646$/MT CO 2 , depending on the various decarbonization technologies and energy prices.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Morphogenic Growth 3D Printing

Inspired by nature's morphogenesis, a new 3D printing process –growth printing (GP)– takes advantage of a self‐propagating curing front to produce 3D polymeric parts following a growth‐like development plan. The propagation of the curing front is driven by the exothermic polymerization of dicyclopentadiene (DCPD), which transforms the liquid resin into a stiff polymer as it propagates at 1 mm s −1 . GP is triggered when a heated initiator contacts the uncured liquid resin in an open container. The initiator nucleates the frontal polymerization reaction and the isotropic radial propagation of the growth front. Simultaneously, the initiator is moved up across the free surface of the resin, pulling the cured object out of the uncured resin. The motion trajectory of the initiator with respect to the free resin surface controls the growth morphology of the 3D part. An inverse design algorithm is developed to produce 3D parts by modeling the reaction‐diffusion‐driven solidification process. This process has substantial energy savings and high printing speeds.

3D printing↗

DOE OSTI2024

Wide Bandgap Generation (WBGen): Developing the Future Wide Bandgap Power Electronics Engineering Workforce

This Final Technical Report (FTR) summarizes the work conducted at the Center for Power Electronics Systems (CPES) under the Wide-Bandgap Generation (WBGen) fellowship and traineeship program established by the Advanced Manufacturing and Technologies Office (AMMTO) of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at Virginia Tech, which had as main objective to train the next generation of U.S. citizen power engineers with wide-bandgap (WBG) power semiconductor expertise, with the intent to aid in fulfilling the future workforce needs in this field. The latter was deemed of strategic importance given the fast-paced growth observed—and predicted—in the demand of this technical expertise, whose practitioners have become the enablers and executioners of the electrification transformation process that not just the U.S., but the whole world, is currently undergoing as it seeks for more effective and efficient ways to use energy. As such, the WBGen program set forth to achieve its educational goals, which in addition sought to broaden the range of WBG-based power electronics by conducting research and development on high-efficiency grid apparatus and high-efficiency electrical power systems, and to also enhance the power engineering curriculum by formalizing WBG-oriented design procedures replacing existent yet now obsolete design procedures developed for Silicon (Si) based power electronics. This effort led CPES to spearhead the development of a new major within The Bradley Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Department at Virginia Tech, namely Electronic Power and Energy Systems (EPES), which coalesced power electronics and power systems courses to provide undergraduate students with a strong formation in the power engineering field, while creating a pipeline of graduate students that could pursue the WBG-based curriculum and conduct research at CPES. In all, in what is considered a true success, eight of the twenty WBGen fellows that graduated program were recruited from the ECE department undergraduate cohort. The traineeship emphasized as well, from its beginning, the partnership with industry and national laboratories, which took advantage of the successful industry consortium at CPES that has historically been formed by 80–90 power and energy companies working in close collaboration with the center. This gave WBGen fellows the accessibility and possibility to conduct internships at partner facilities during the summer months, focused solely on the evaluation, testing, and adoption of WBG devices, which were many times tightly related to their respective research work and plans. In addition, WBGen fellows conducted their main research work within the confines of research programs at CPES conducted with these industry partners, providing them with a unique opportunity to develop not just their technical expertise—while advancing their knowledge, but to also learn and practice a slew of skills needed for their professional growth. As such, the fellows tackled a variety of WBG-related research topics, from device reliability and capability aspects as well as packaging and integration, encompassing the use of advanced materials and new structures, current sharing challenges, and insulation systems, to advanced gate-drivers with integrated sensors and protection mechanisms and active current- and voltage-based control, to optimized layouts seeking to maximize the switching and power processing performance of these devices, to power processing solutions adopting Gallium-Nitride (GaN) and Silicon-Carbide (SiC) power semiconductors for a variety of applications; including radiation-hardened converters for space dc distribution systems, direct three-phase ac-to-ac power converters for aerospace systems, dc-ac inverters for automotive traction drives, high-frequency isolated dc-dc battery chargers also for heavy transportation systems, and medium-voltage dc-dc and dc-ac converters for distribution systems and future power grids. The WBGen program ultimately graduated a total of 20 power engineers, all experts on WBG-based power electronics, awarding 18 M.S. and 2 PhD degrees in the process. These fellows, all U.S. citizens, allowed CPES to increase the number of citizens students to 33 % at the peak of the program, as the traineeship made possible the recruitment of talent with more attractive graduate research assistantship (GRA) contracts. Unfortunately, the present U.S. citizen enrollment at CPES has declined back to historic levels—approximately 10 %, as the regular GRA rates are not competitive enough when compared with entry-level industry jobs. In all, WBGen fellows published a total of 7 peer-reviewed journal articles, 44 papers at international technical conferences, made 42 presentations at international technical conferences, and filed 4 invention disclosures and patent applications, which have since then been granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Their contribution to CPES, Virginia Tech, the United States, and the world, has been significant, and continues to yield results thanks to the exemplary career that the fellows have initiated at many of the partners of the program, which include Wolfspeed, Raytheon Technologies, Infineon, Lockheed Martin, Dominion Energy, Northrop Grumman, Rivian, Aerospace Corporation, Sandia National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, John Hopkins University, and Virginia Tech.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Materials for Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (A-USC) Steam Turbines --- A-USC Component Demonstration

The U.S. Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (A-USC) Consortium was formed in 2001 as a government/industry program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) and cost shared by industrial and not-for-profit partners. The purpose of the consortium was to advance the state of the art for power generation by evaluating and developing materials that allow the use of advanced steam cycles in coal-based power plants. These advanced cycles, with steam temperatures up to 1400°F (760°C), can increase the efficiency of coal-fired boilers from an average of 35% (current U.S. fleet) to more than 45% higher heating value (HHV) (>49% lower heating value [LHV]). The increase in a plant’s efficiency is limited unless new materials able to withstand these higher operating temperatures and pressures are identified and approved for use. The A-USC Consortium identified these needed materials during earlier phases of the program. It developed the welding and joining techniques along with manufacturing processes for casting and wrought products made from these new high-nickel alloys. It subjected these materials to extensive laboratory and steam loop testing. It then obtained ASME code approval for their use in U.S. boiler systems. The program’s successes leave this last remaining activity (ComTest Phase 2) that the U.S. utility industry has recommended to be accomplished prior to commercialization. The focus of the activity is the evaluation and demonstration of commercial readiness for “full scale” components to be made from these nickel-based alloy materials and provided by a U.S. domestic supply chain that is new to working with these alloys. According to studies completed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the cost of an A-USC plant is approximately 20% higher than a non-A-USC plant because of its use of nickel-based alloys needed for the high temperature operating conditions. However, CO 2 reductions of approximately 30% from the current fleet average provide a strong incentive for its consideration. The actual costs and perceived value for CO 2 abatement will determine whether new or retrofitted plants are undertaken, although decisions to build A-USC plants in India would indicate its economic feasibility while also being part of a global carbon emissions strategy. The work by the A-USC Consortium, prior to the start of the ComTest project, has included lab scale and pilot scale materials testing, both in air and oxy-combustion. This testing has included air-cooled and steam-cooled “loops” that were installed into existing operating utility boilers to gain exposure of these materials to realistic conditions of high temperature and corrosion caused by the constituents in the coal ash. The A-USC Consortium also gained ASME Code approval of the Inconel 740 material, has cast and extruded the largest high nickel precipitation hardened alloys, and developed unique welding techniques to avoid problems identified by the competing European program. However, as valuable as these material test loops and accomplishments have been for obtaining information, their scale is below that required to minimize the risk associated for a U.S. utility to build a multibillion-dollar A-USC power plant. To reduce the final identified risk barrier to full-scale commercialization of these advanced materials and systems, the A-USC Consortium (guided by a utility industry advisory committee) has identified the key areas of the technology they desire to see as being capable of full-scale manufacturing and/or fabrication from an identified, capable U.S. domestic supplier base. A significant amount of work was accomplished during Phase 1 to identity the components, as well as the component size, that would be manufactured from advanced alloys such as Inconel 740H or Haynes 282 alloys. Pathways to supply these components for ComTest have been identified, as well as any further development that would be required. The Phase 2 effort used Phase 1 findings for designing these key full-scale components for A-USC boilers and turbines to include large castings; extrusions, forgings, fabrication of water walls and steam loops with headers from advanced materials, raw material (such as pipe extrusion billets) are at the commercial readiness level to permit advancement to a demonstration project. The Phase 2 work scope was addressed by a diverse team, including government, industry, and not-for-profit partners. The work scope under Phase 2 addressed fabrication of components identified as being outside of the proven capabilities of the existing supply chain, including the following: Steam turbine rotor forging and Haynes 282 nozzle carrier casting Superheater and reheater header and tube assemblies Large-diameter pipe extrusions and forgings Test valve articles to support ASME Code approval. In addition, key fabrication steps were completed, including boiler weld overlays and simulated field repairs. Throughout, extensive inspection and quality assurance testing of the components were performed. The team worked to advance ASME Code approval for key components and processes. Although much of the focus of ComTest Phase 2 was the high-temperature nickel-based alloy materials, a broader range of materials were incorporated, which would be representative of the materials used in full-scale A-USC power plant applications and have cross-cutting applicability on other high-temperature power generation options, such as advanced nuclear, supercritical CO 2 cycles, and central solar receivers. This report that has been submitted is organized in the following manner: Section 1 contains an Executive Summary. Section 2 discusses the ComTest project background and organization. Section 3 discusses project management and reporting. Section 4 discusses the procurement of nickel-based alloy and other A-USC materials and components. Section 5 discusses the fabrication of procurement of nickel-based alloy and other A-USC materials and components. Section 6 discusses the fabrication of cast nickel-based A-USC steam turbine components. Section 7 discusses the fabrication of forged nickel-based A-USC steam turbine piping and steam pipe components. Section 8 discusses the qualification of pressure relieve valves (PRVs) for A-USC power plants. Section 9 discusses proposed plans for future evaluation of A-USC components. Section 10 contains the summary and conclusion.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2025

MPEX AI Digital Twins

All magnetically confined plasma fusion power plant concepts (Tokamak, Spherical Tokamak, Stellarator, Mirror, ...) must exhaust the heat and plasma from the core confinement region to the material walls. The primary channel for this exhaust is through a plasma divertor which directs plasma along open magnetic field lines to a material target. The Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment (MPEX) illustrated in Figure 1, is a high-power, steady-state linear plasma device designed to produce the plasma material interaction (PMI) conditions of the divertor of future magnetic confinement fusion power plants: energy flux 20MW/m 2 , ion fluence 1031/m 2 , pulse duration 106 sec. These goals of plasma exposure in MPEX are well beyond those achieved in magnetic fusion experimental devices. Successfully achieving these high power steady state conditions for long pulses requires operational control of the heating and particle sources and the plasma flux to the walls and target. The MPEX AI Hot Spot Controller, proposed in this project, will help achieve the operational milestones of MPEX. The MPEX device will begin commissioning at the end of FY26. A smaller proto-MPEX was operated for 14,666 plasma discharges and will resume operation in September of 2025 as proto-MPEX-lite, with reduced capability, to test a new window for the Helicon plasma source. The proto-MPEX data has undergone surrogate modeling with machine learning methods (R. Archibald, 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data). This proto-MPEX data will be used to begin development of the AI digital twins described in this white paper. The scientific mission of MPEX is to qualify materials of different composition for use in the high energy and plasma flux conditions of a fusion power plant. The materials exposed in MPEX will in some cases be exposed to high neutron fluxes at other ORNL facilities to measure the changes to their PMI properties. The targets exposed in MPEX will be transported under vacuum to a Surface Analysis Station (SAS). The SAS will be equipped with the following diagnostics: Focused Ion Beam (FIB) for trench milling, 100-400 angstrom resolution scanning electron microscope (SEM), surface mapping x-ray spectrometer, high resolution camera, and a future upgrade to a laser induced breakdown spectroscopy quadruple mass spectrometer (LIBS-QMS). The MPEX experiments will generate diverse pre- and post-exposure measurement data of detailed material properties down to the crystal grain level in 3D for post-exposure assessment of PMI damage (e.g. cracking, melting, erosion and redeposition of the material). Physics models for the PMI, and how the material composition and manufacturing impact its performance under high energy plasma exposure, need to be validated with MPEX data to guide the selection of new candidate materials. Our vision for the MPEX AI Digital Twins project is to supply experimental and physics model simulation data to train Artificial Intelligence (AI) models for data processing, analysis, operational control, PMI and materials simulation to maximize the scientific output of the MPEX device. Ultimately, an AI digital twin of MPEX material assessment metrics for tested and synthetic material types with simulated PMI will be trained by the AI Modeling Teams on the experimental and physics simulation data submitted to the American Science Cloud by this project. A purely empirical search for the best material is inefficient given the finite number of samples that can be tested on MPEX. In order to expand the material properties database for training the MPEX Material Assessment AI Digital Twin, and to gain physics understanding of the PMI processes, physics models of the material properties and PMI processes are required. The physics simulations provide detailed simulation data, like impact angles for plasma ions, sputtering yields, transport of the ionized sputtered target material in the plasma, and redeposition locations. This simulation data expands the measurement data for deeper physics understanding. The experimental data is essential to validate the PMI and material structure simulation models. The validated models can then be used to generate new simulation data of MPEX material assessments for synthetic material compositions that have not been exposed in MPEX. These predictive simulations, plus the whole experimental dataset, will be used to train the MPEX Material Assessment AI Digital Twin allowing a rapid generative AI search for new materials with reduced PMI damage by interpolating the domain of the training set. These new optimum materials can be simulated with the physics codes and/or tested in MPEX. The ability of AI neural networks to interpolate multi-dimensional parameter spaces and generate virtual data is exploited for a more efficient search for optimum materials. The advent of the Transformational AI Models Consortium (TAIMC) is an opportunity to engage with state of the art private and public AI developers to achieve the goals of the AI digital twins and AI accelerated physics models proposed in this project. Our partners at ORNL from the Advance Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) organization will collaborate in accelerating the integrated plasma material interaction simulation framework. This simulation framework will provide a platform for generating simulation data across a range of physical fidelities, including hybrid methods that produce multi-fidelity results. This data will be leveraged for AI model development, both for generation of surrogates and the automation of simulation campaigns. A part of the research below will include collaborative efforts with the TAIMC to (i) adapt data storage approaches to ensure AI-readiness, (ii) provide a protypical exemplar to inform and exercise constructed workflows, and (iii) generate and share data, using the TAIMC unified AI data standard, for foundational models that will be trained from multiple sources across the DOE complex. We will also collaborate with the TAIMC, as well as the planned AI modeling teams, to develop approaches for reducing the cost of data generation. These include tailored multi-fidelity approaches as well as fine-tuning strategies to augment general, large-scale foundational models.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Characterization of Orography-Influenced Riming and Secondary Ice Production and Their Effects on Precipitation Rates Using Radar Polarimetry and Doppler Spectra (CORSIPP-SAIL)

The Characterization of Orography-Influenced Riming and Secondary Ice Production and Their Effects on Precipitation Rates Using Radar Polarimetry and Doppler Spectra (CORSIPP) project was conducted to help improve the understanding of precipitation formation in orographically influenced terrain. Special focus is put on the two processes of riming and secondary ice production and their external drivers. Two instruments, a polarimetric W-band simultaneous transmission simultaneous reception (STSR) Doppler cloud radar manufactured by Radiometer Physics GmbH (RPG, instrument type RPG-FMCW-94-DP), from now on named LIMRAD94, and the video in situ snowfall sensor (VISSS), were deployed at the U. S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s Surface Atmosphere Integrated Field Laboratory (SAIL) site in Gothic, Colorado between November 2022 and June 2023 during the second SAIL winter. Note that the exact dates of data availability differ between the instruments. Both instruments arrived at Gothic on November 2, 2022, 09:20 local time. VISSS, described by Maahn et al., is equipped with two camera systems with telecentric lenses. The two cameras are at a 90° angle to each other. This configuration allows for size-independent measurements by capturing images of hydrometeors from two sides at a high frame rate of 250 Hz. With a minimum detection size of 200 μm, VISSS provides valuable insights into particle size, number, shape, complexity, and fall velocity. The VISSS was deployed on the grassland next to the ARM facility with the amazing help of the ARM employees on site. The setup started on November 2, 2022, and was finished on November 5, 2022, without major problems. VISSS measurements were started on November 6, 2022. LIMRAD94 was installed on a scaffolding platform near Orehouse (Gothic) on November 9, 2022, with the great help of RMBL staff. LIMRAD94 was mounted on a cold temperature scanner prototype. After a short test of the setup on November 9, 2022, the digital control of the scanner elevation stopped working for (at that time) unknown reasons. All attempts to resolve the problem failed. This malfunction made it impossible to operate LIMRAD94 in scanning mode. The scanner was then manually moved to zenith pointing mode and between November 10 and November 15, 2022, vertical observations for polarimetric calibration were performed. On November 15, 2022, after the polarimetric calibration was applied, the scanner was manually moved to 40° elevation with azimuthal view towards the Ka-band ARM Zenith Radar (KAZR) and measurements were continued at constant elevation. Investigation of the scanner malfunction on February 6, 2023, by Benn Schmatz revealed a disengagement between the cogwheel of the elevation motor and the cogwheel moving the scanner in elevation. This mechanical issue was temporarily solved by re-engaging the cogwheels. This made the scanner operational again for about four weeks, until mechanical force disengaged the cogwheels again on March 15, 2023. This repeated scanner failure remained undetected for about three weeks until April 8, 2023; during this time the scanner was stuck at 72° elevation. However, the radar software continued to produce data files falsely indicating that the scanner was still operational. After the scanner failure was noticed, scanning was stopped again, and we returned to constant elevation measurements. On May 15, 2023, the cogwheels of the elevation motor were secured with additional screws sent by the manufacturer. At some point in May, the cogwheels of the azimuth motor were also disengaged by mechanical force, which still allowed for range height indicator (RHI) but no plan position indicator (PPI) scans in the last weeks of the campaign. The azimuth motor was repaired in Germany after the end of the campaign. Throughout the campaign, RMBL and ARM staff kept the radar and the VISSS free of snow.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Performance Evaluation of Comparative Vacuum Monitoring and Piezoelectric Sensors for Structural Health Monitoring of Rotorcraft Components

The costs associated with the increasing maintenance and surveillance needs of aging structures are rising at an unexpected rate. Multi-site fatigue damage, hidden cracks in hard-to-reach locations, disbonded joints, erosion, impact, and corrosion are among the major flaws encountered in today’s extensive fleet of aging aircraft and space vehicles. Aircraft maintenance and repairs represent about a quarter of a commercial fleet’s operating costs. The application of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) systems using distributed sensor networks can reduce these costs by facilitating rapid and global assessments of structural integrity. The use of in-situ sensors for real-time health monitoring can overcome inspection impediments stemming from accessibility limitations, complex geometries, and the location and depth of hidden damage. Reliable, structural health monitoring systems can automatically process data, assess structural condition, and signal the need for human intervention. The ease of monitoring an entire on-board network of distributed sensors means that structural health assessments can occur more often, allowing operators to be even more vigilant with respect to flaw onset. SHM systems also allow for condition-based maintenance practices to be substituted for the current time-based or cycle-based maintenance approach thus optimizing maintenance labor. The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted a series of SHM validation and certification programs intended to comprehensively support the evolution and adoption of SHM practices into routine aircraft maintenance practices. This report presents one of those programs involving a Sandia Labs-aviation industry effort to move SHM into routine use for aircraft maintenance. The Airworthiness Assurance NDI Validation Center (AANC) at Sandia Labs, in conjunction with Sikorsky, Structural Monitoring Systems Ltd., Anodyne Electronics Manufacturing Corp., Acellent Technologies Inc., and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) carried out a trial validation and certification program to evaluate Comparative Vacuum Monitoring (CVM) and Piezoelectric Transducers (PZT) as a structural health monitoring solution to specific rotorcraft applications. Validation tasks were designed to address the SHM equipment, the health monitoring task, the resolution required, the sensor interrogation procedures, the conditions under which the monitoring will occur, the potential inspector population, adoption of CVM and PZT systems into rotorcraft maintenance programs and the document revisions necessary to allow for their routine use as an alternate means of performing periodic structural inspections. This program addressed formal SHM technology validation and certification issues so that the full spectrum of concerns, including design, deployment, performance and certification were appropriately considered. Sandia Labs designed, implemented, and analyzed the results from a focused and statistically relevant experimental effort to quantify the reliability of a CVM system applied to Sikorsky S-92 fuselage frame application and a PZT system applied to an S-92 main gearbox mount beam application. The applications included both local and global damage detection assessments. All factors that affect SHM sensitivity were included in this program: flaw size, shape, orientation and location relative to the sensors, as well as operational and environmental variables. Statistical methods were applied to performance data to derive Probability of Detection (POD) values for SHM sensors in a manner that agrees with current nondestructive inspection (NDI) validation requirements and is acceptable to both the aviation industry and regulatory bodies. The validation work completed in this program demonstrated the ability of both CVM and PZT SHM systems to detect cracks in rotorcraft components. It proved the ability to use final system response parameters to provide a Green Light/Red Light (“GO” – “NO GO”) decision on the presence of damage. In additional to quantifying the performance of each SHM system for the trial applications on the S-92 platform, this study also identified specific methods that can be used to optimize damage detection, guidance on deployment scenarios that can affect performance and considerations that must be made to properly apply CVM and PZT sensors. These results support the main goal of safely integrating SHM sensors into rotorcraft maintenance programs. Additional benefits from deploying rotorcraft Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) may be realized when structural assessment data, collected by an SHM system, is also used to detect structural damage to compliment the operational environment monitoring. The use of in-situ sensors for health monitoring of rotorcraft structures can be a viable option for both flaw detection and maintenance planning activities. This formal SHM validation will allow aircraft manufacturers and airlines to confidently make informed decisions about the proper utilization of CVM and PZT technology. It will also streamline future regulatory actions and formal certification measures needed to assure the safe application of SHM solutions.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

DOE OSTI2026

Tandem Photovoltaics Core Program Final Technical Report

The Tandem Photovoltaics Core Program was a multi-year initiative aimed at advancing hybrid tandem solar cell technologies to enhance solar module efficiency beyond the limits of single junction devices. This project focused on the development, testing, and scaling of prototype photovoltaic devices, with the goal of achieving commercial relevance and driving industry adoption. The work was divided into three tasks: 1) Comparative Analysis of Tandem Technologies: This task focused on quantifying energy yield under real-world conditions and assessing economic viability of tandems relative to silicon-based modules. The project's modeling framework incorporated performance data, cost of materials, and manufacturing process impacts to optimize tandem designs 2) Tandem Integration and Prototyping: In this task, we developed innovative tandem designs by combining metal halide perovskite (MHP) top cells and silicon (Si) bottom cells. The project focuses on both mechanical integration and direct deposition techniques to enable compatibility with commercially relevant Si technologies, such as passivated contact or PERC cells. 3) Scale-up and Reliability: This task addressed the challenges of large-area fabrication by developing scalable deposition methods and robust interconnection schemes for tandems. The project looked at different accelerated testing such as thermal cycling, damp heat exposure, and potential induced degradation, to ensure long-term stability of devices in field conditions. Tandem solar cells can greatly increase module efficiency beyond conventional single junction (SJ) devices, which are approaching their theoretical limit. There are many ways to fabricate a tandem cell or module in terms of materials used, configuration, and terminal connection. This SETO core project focused critical factors in enabling tandems to enter the market, including hardware integration, technoeconomic analysis (TEA), and energy yield analysis. We focused on MHP/Si hybrid tandem solar cells and modules as a model system for their versatility in module design comparisons, providing valuable insights for other tandem options. While champion cells with areas <1cm2 are regularly demonstrated by groups around the world, it is significantly more challenging to translate these advances into modules, and fewer institutions and companies are working at the module level. This project addressed questions about module fabrication, testing, and reliability that are hard to answer without actually fabricating prototypes. We also performed analysis and road-mapping activities to understand the potential for a wider variety of tandems, including all-perovskite tandems fabricated in collaboration with the Perovskite PV core program. Detailed technical results from this project are described for each task in Section 7.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with the Mongird et al. paper entitled "Can US power grid expansion avoid prime agricultural lands?" and is organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSIxRP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_rp_score_raster.tif solar_msi_rp_score_raster.tif wind_msi_rp_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗

DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with Mongird et al. (in prep) organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSI+RP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_ep_score_raster.tif solar_msi_ep_score_raster.tif wind_msi_ep_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗

DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

DOE OSTI2024

Retrofitting Holcim Ste. Genevieve Cement Plant with CO2 Capture Plant Using Air Liquide Cryocap™ FG Technology

The global cement manufacturing industry is a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The International Energy Agency's "Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario" identifies CCS as a major strategy for meeting that goal. This project is among the first attempts to transfer capture technology developed at coal-fired power plants to the cement industry. The main objective of the project is to execute and complete a front-end engineering and design (FEED) studies for commercial-scale, carbon capture projects that separates 95% of the total CO2 emissions at the Holcim (US) Ste. Genevieve cement manufacturing facility using Air Liquide’s Pressure Swing Adsorption system (PSA) assisted Cryocap™ technology. The Holcim Ste. Genevieve cement plant in Missouri, US, boasts one of the largest single cement production lines in the world, with a capacity of approximately 12,000 t/day. The plant currently uses traditional fuels, namely coal and petcoke. The captured CO2 will be pipeline and geological storage grade. The industrial host site emits approximately 3.0 million tonne CO2/yr. Air Liquide’s Cryocap™ technology has been developed over the last 18+ years for CO2 capture applications. It has been shown to be applicable to a variety of industrial applications (e.g., steel, cement, SMR, Fluidized Catalytic Crackers (FCCs)). Cryocap™ FG consists of a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit coupled with a Cryogenic System. The PSA pre-concentrates the CO2 from the flue gas, while the cryogenic unit enables the CO2 purity to be increased to the desired level. The project team is led by the Prairie Research Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The tasks include: complete FEED study for retrofitting the industrial facility with a carbon capture system to support developing a detailed cost estimate; business case analysis outlining the anticipated revenue and credits if projects was built and operated; technoeconomic analysis (TEA) outlining how capture system achieves DOE capture goals; and life cycle (LCA) analysis demonstrating zero net carbon emissions. The FEED study was successfully completed. This includes completing the process basis of design; preliminary engineering; outside battery limits (OSBL) detailed engineering including a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) wastewater treatment system; inside battery limits (ISBL) detailed engineering [1]. An overall project capital cost estimate within a -20%/+30% accuracy was developed. The major contributors to the Total Plant Cost (TPC), by system, are the costs associated with the Outside Battery Limit (OSBL) section of the plant which includes a new river water intake structure and a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system. By cost category, the major contributors to the TPC are equipment and subcontractor costs, followed closely by engineering, construction management, home office and contractor fees. The TEA has been created to reflect the findings of the project. It analyzes the economic performance of the Cryocap™ technology by reviewing the estimated capital costs, operating cost, and revenue. The Cost of Capture (COC) associated with the Cryocap™ technology for 95% CO2 capture, when considering NETL 2018 economic assumptions (42/58 debt/equity ratio, 5.15% interest on debt and 1.42% return on equity in real dollars) and 2022 economic assumptions (42/58 debt/equity ratio, 8.82% interest on debt and 4.90% return on equity in real dollars) was found to be much lower than that for the DOE-NETL’s base-line cases. The highest contributors to the COC are annualized capital expenditures (CAPEX) and electricity consumption which can be offset by using lower cost renewable sources. The LCA was conducted using OpenLCA which is an open-source software that is recommended by NETL. The database utilized for this study was a modified version of TRACI 2.1 (developed by the US. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory and modified by NETL). The Cryocap™ FG technology does not consume fuels in significant quantities and does not utilize specialized chemical solvents subject to decomposition, such as those utilized in amine-based carbon capture systems. The Cryocap™ FG technology mainly utilizes electricity as its energy input; hence, its calculated emissions are mainly associated with the generation of electricity offsite and are dependent on the energy matrix of the grid at the time of project implementation. The water consumption impact of the Cryocap™ FG is mostly for makeup of the water lost by evaporation in the cooling tower; however, the carbon capture plant will be equipped with a ZLD system to avoid effluent streams and minimize water consumption. The successful construction and operation of this plant based on this study results will provide a means to demonstrate an economically attractive and transformational capture technology that can be used to retrofit existing plants and be deployed at new plants.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗